Just then I noticed that almost all the people in the courtroom were greeting each other, exchanging remarks and forming groups-behaving, in fact, as in a club where the company of others of one’s own tastes and standing makes one feel at ease. That, no doubt, explained the odd impression I had of being de trop here, a sort of gate-crasher. ^(2){ }^{2} 就在這時，我注意到法庭上幾乎所有的人都在互相問候，交換意見，組成小組——事實上，就像在一個俱樂部里，與有自己品味和地位的人在一起會讓人感到輕鬆自在。毫無疑問，這解釋了我在這裡的奇怪印象，一種闖關者。 ^(2){ }^{2}
Or he may come to resemble Hester Prynne, in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter. Ostracized for having committed adultery, Hester is forced to live at the edge of the wilderness, on the outskirts of the Puritan community. Because she has “a mind of native courage and activity,” her “estranged point of view” enables her to look critically at institutions once taken for granted, to criticize all “with hardly more reverence than the Indian would feel for the clerical band, the judicial robe, the pillory, the gallows, the fireside, or the church.” ^(3){ }^{3} Both Meursault and Hester are strangers in the sense that they do not share the conventional vision. Camus describes an entirely honest man who will not pretend to share the cultural pieties; Hawthorne describes a woman who is “emancipated.” Both see more than their less conscious fellow citizens could possibly see. Both are ready to wonder and question; and it is in wonder and questioning that learning begins. 或者他可能會變得像納撒尼爾·霍桑 （Nathaniel Hawthorne） 的《紅字》（The Scarlet Letter） 中的海斯特·普林 （Hester Prynne）。海斯特因通姦而受到排斥，被迫住在清教徒社區郊區的荒野邊緣。因為她有“與生俱來的勇氣和活力”，她的“疏遠的觀點”使她能夠批判性地看待曾經被認為是理所當然的機構，批評所有機構，“幾乎不比印度人對神職人員樂隊、司法長袍、枷鎖、絞刑架、爐邊或教堂的崇敬更多”。 ^(3){ }^{3} 默爾索和海斯特都是陌生人，因為他們不同意傳統的看法。加繆描述了一個完全誠實的人，他不會假裝分享文化上的虔誠;霍桑描述了一個 「解放」 的女人。兩人都比他們意識較弱的同胞所能看到的要多。兩人都準備好了好奇和質疑;正是在驚奇和質疑中，學習開始了。
We do not ask that the teacher perceive his existence as absurd; nor do we demand that he estrange himself from his community. We simply suggest that he struggle against unthinking submergence in the social reality that prevails. If he wishes to present himself as a person actively engaged in critical thinking and authentic choosing, he cannot accept any “ready-made standardized scheme” at face value. He cannot even take for granted the value of intelligence, rationality, or education. Why, after all, should a human being act intelligently or rationally? How does a teacher justify the educational policies he is assigned to carry out within his school? If the teacher does not pose such questions to himself, he cannot expect-his students to pose the kinds of questions about experience which will involve them in self-aware inquiry. 我們不要求導師認為他的存在是荒謬的;我們也不要求他把自己與他的社區疏遠。我們只是建議他與不假思索地淹沒在普遍存在的社會現實中作鬥爭。如果他希望將自己展示為一個積极參與批判性思維和真實選擇的人，他就不能接受任何表面價值的「現成的標準化方案」。。他甚至不能把智慧、理性或教育的價值視為理所當然。畢竟，為什麼人類應該以智慧或理性的方式行事呢？教師如何證明他被指派在學校內執行的教育政策的合理性？如果老師不對自己提出這樣的問題，他就不能指望他的學生提出那種關於經驗的問題，這些問題會讓他們參與到自我意識的探究中。
Maurice Merleau-Ponty attributes the feeling of certainty that rules out questioning to the ancient notion that each human being carries within him a homunculus, or “little man,” who can “see” what is real and true. This homunculus represents what is best in the human being; and, unlike the person involved with the natural world and other people, the phantom creature inside always knows the Ideal. Merleau-Ponty writes: 莫裡斯·梅洛-龐蒂 （Maurice Merleau-Ponty） 將排除質疑的確定感歸因於一個古老的觀念，即每個人的內心都有一個人或“小個子”，他可以“看到”真實和真實的東西。這個人代表了人類最好的一面;而且，與自然界的人和其他人不同，裡面的幻影生物總是知道理想。Merleau-Ponty 寫道：
The “little man within man” is only the phantom of our successful expressive operations; and the admirable man is not this phantom but the man who-installed in his fragile body, in a language which has already done so much speaking, and in a reeling history-gathers himself together and begins to see, to understand, and to signify. There is no longer anything decorous or decorative about today’s humanism. It no longer loves man in opposition to his body, mind in opposition to its language, values in opposition to facts. It no longer speaks of man and mind except in a sober way, with modesty: mind and man never are; they show through the movement by which the body becomes gesture, language an oeuvre, and coexistence truth. “人中的小人”只是我們成功的表達操作的幻影;而這個令人欽佩的人不是這個幻影，而是那個在他脆弱的身體里安置的人，用一種已經說了這麼多話的語言，在一段搖搖欲墜的歷史中，把自己聚集在一起，開始看到、理解和表示。今天的人文主義不再有任何體面或裝飾性的東西。它不再愛人而與他的身體相對立，思想與人的語言相對立，價值觀與事實相對立。它不再談論人和思想，除非以一種清醒的方式，帶著謙遜：思想和人從來都不是;它們通過身體成為姿態的運動、語言成為全部作品和共存的真理來展示。
The teacher is frequently addressed as if he had no life of his own, no body, and no inwardness. Lecturers seem to presuppose a “man within man” when they describe a good teacher as infinitely controlled and accommodating, technically efficient, impervious to moods. They are likely to define him by the role he is expected to play in a classroom, with all his loose ends gathered up and all his doubts resolved. The numerous realities in which he exists as a living person are overlooked. His personal biography is overlooked; so are the many ways in which he expresses his 老師經常被稱呼為沒有自己的生命，沒有身體，也沒有內向。當講師將一位好老師描述為無限控制和包容、技術高效、不受情緒影響時，他們似乎預設了“人中之人”。他們可能會根據他在課堂上扮演的角色來定義他，他所有未解決的問題都得到了解決。他作為一個活生生的人存在的眾多現實被忽視了。他的個人傳記被忽視了;他表達他的
